The past record of Sri Lanka’s commissions of inquiry has been so poor that ‘failure’ seems to be the predominant ‘home-grown’ quality of those commissions. Hence, there is naturally a great degree of skepticism shown when a government announces the establishment of a new commission (‘yet another commission’), even the establishment of the ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’ (LLRC). All governments (including the present one) are responsible for this state of affairs. These were some of the critical views expressed by this writer elsewhere (and by others), when the LLRC was established. The presumption that the LLRC or other commissions are bound to fail (given the past record of commissions) is, it is admitted, a rebuttable presumption; so, the LLRC and the government can always prove their critics wrong.
Yet, the LLRC process has begun. Even though the government may be disingenuous, the members of the LLRC have so far shown that they are not. A number of groups and individuals (respected former public servants and diplomats, senior journalists etc.) have appeared before the LLRC and made very useful submissions. Some civilians who were directly affected during the last stages of the war have come forward and stated their version of what happened; about how they were held as part of a ‘human shield’ by the LTTE, but also about how the government forces carried out certain attacks. It’s within this context that an invitation to appear before the LLRC was extended to Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Crisis Group (ICG). Having raised some important issues in their joint letter, these organizations have proceeded to reject the invitation; stating that they would be pleased to appear if a "genuine and credible process" is established featuring, inter alia, "truly independent commission members."

Last week I was on route on UL 227 to address a Global Forum on Tea that was staged in Dubai. As soon as the aircraft was airborne and was gaining height I could see the contour of Sri Lanka taking shape. My mind went back to the time when I had to travel almost on a weekly routine to Jaffna on military aircrafts to develop the private sector businesses in Jaffna during the height of the final battle. From a 34 companies that were operating in Jaffna in the 1990’s, we were able to harness the real potential of the peninsula where by the end mid 2009 there over one hundred and fifty private sector companies operation either directly or through indirect methods of distribution. But even with all this work amidst a war with one of the most ruthless terrorist organization in the world, if one googled brand Sri Lanka, the reports were not that encouraging.

The motion brought by the United National Party against the Minister of External Affairs seemed a heaven sent opportunity for the government to clarify a number of issues regarding the External Relations of this country over the last few years. In particular it made clear the erosion of what might be termed the international agenda of the principal opposition, a factor of great importance since, though the most dangerous threat facing this country, that of terrorism within our shores, has been defeated, the external threat still looms.

UN Secretary General Ban ki- moon is once again figuring in a controversy  among the media. This is because of the growing criticisms against him  pertaining to the policies he is following in regard to Sri Lanka (SL).One of the accusations levelled against him is the veil of secrecy he is attaching to the panel of advisors he has appointed to inquire into whether  war crimes were in fact committed in SL or not. The other accusation is  his tight lipped reticence about his discussion at the recent one to one meeting  with SL President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the UN.